CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334Medication Adherence and CompliancePharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacy and Medical Practices

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Drug therapy in the elderly: what doctors believe and patients actually do

Open access
Barat, I., Andreasen, F., Damsgaard, E. M. S.·2001·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
DOI 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01401.xPMC PMC2014493
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aims To examine the medication adherence among old persons living in their own homes, to assess their knowledge of their medication, and to indicate target areas for intervention. Methods A cross‐sectional study of data collected from randomly selected samples of 348 persons, aged 75 years recruited from a population‐based register in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark. Information on all drugs was collected from the subjects during a home visit, and their drug storage was examined. Information was collected from the general practitioners (GP). The measures of adherence were scores of agreements between the GPs' lists and the subjects' actual drug consumption. Results We found disagreement between the drug information collected from the study population and from the GPs: concerning drugs in 22% of the study‐population, concerning doses in 71%, and concerning regimens prescribed by the GP in 66%. Twenty‐four percent stated that they did not always follow prescriptions. Most of the deviations from prescriptions were toward lower doses and less frequent drug intake. The drugs most often involved in deviations were hypnotics, analgesics, bronchodilators and diuretics. Sixty percent of the participants knew the purpose of medication, and 21% knew the consequences of omission of the drugs. Less than 6% of the subjects knew about the toxic risks, side‐effects, or potential drug interactions. The participants' knowledge of the drugs was positively associated with their adherence. We found a correlation between an increased number of prescribed frequency of drug intake per day and deviation from the regimen (r = 0.25, P = 0.01). There was a positive association between nonadherence and the use of three or more drugs (odds ratio (OR) 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5,4.1), prescriptions from more than one doctor (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3,4.8), and probability of dementia (OR 9.0; 95% CI 1.1,72.5). Moreover compliance aids facilitated adherence (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.6,12.3). Persons living alone were more prone to medication errors (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1,3.5). Conclusions A differentiated evaluation of adherence by considering the drug, the dose, and the regimen separately produced quantifiable data concerning the subjects' medication habits. Non‐adherence ranged from 20 to 70% depending on the measuring method. The participants' knowledge of the treatment was poor. Our results suggest that better information on medication and the use of compliance aids may prevent nonadherence. Special attention should be paid to persons receiving three or more drugs, living alone, receiving drugs from other doctors, and to persons with predementia symptoms, as they are at higher risk of nonadherence.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01401.x

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sullivan SD, 1990, Noncompliance with medications and subsequent hospitalization: a literature analysis and cost of hospitalization estimate, J Res Pharm Econ, 2, 19
  2. WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology., 1998, Guidelines for ATC Classification and DDD Assignment., 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Barat, I., Andreasen, F., & Damsgaard, E. M. S.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Marselisborgcentret (DK)
Corresponding author
Barat, I.
ORCID
Damsgaard, E. M. S.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-06
Volume
51
Issue
6
Pages
615-622
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
DOI
10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.01401.x
PMC
PMC2014493
OpenAlex
W2064390542
Cited by
334
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 26
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 237 d)
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
medication adherence, older adults, polypharmacy, medication knowledge, medication errors, dementia, hypnotics, analgesics, drug interactions, adverse effects, drug storage, general practitioners, living alone, Denmark
MeSH terms
Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Denmark, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Drug Prescriptions, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Treatment Refusal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review